Post by TNRighty on Feb 22, 2005 18:51:34 GMT -5
Beofre I get to the heart of my rant, read these quotes from President Clinton, Hillary, and John Kerry.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
-President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
-Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
So, how does Howard Dean factor into all of this? I'll explain. The above quotes were all stated PRIOR to the emergence of Howard Dean. He changed everything. During the spring and summer of '03 Howard Dean emerged as the voice of the anti-war, anti-Bush crowd, and his popular reception among leftist liberals completely changed the focus of his party. He was the first prominent Democrat to publicly stick his neck out and take the political risk. He was the first liberal to start playing politics with national security, and he found a huge audience. Almost overnight he became the wildly popular darling of the extreme liberal left and shot like a missile into the driver's seat for the Democratic Presidential nomintation, and the rest of the party followed.
Dean reached the impressionable young people of this country who normally don't give a diddly poo about politics and convinced them that George Bush was the devil. He stirred a political conscience among people who normally could care less. He brought a whole new base to the Democratic electorate.
Howard Dean defined the rules of the game for the Democratic primaries (anti-war, anti-Bush). That was the ticket to the Whitehouse, the essential issue. Any Democrat who took a different stance (Joe Lieberman) was fighting a losting battle, and would not be heard. After all, this was about hating Bush, not supporting America. John Kerry regurgitated Howard Dean's message in a toned-down, more articulate way that appealed to more moderate Democrats who don't smoke dope or burn bras, yet was still able to hold on to the Deanicas. He rode Dean's coattails into the hearts of hippies and supplemented his message with a little class warfare and race-baiting...Hello Democratic nomination!!!
Of course we all know how that turned out for the Dems. America rejected it. Kerry failed, Dean failed, and what does the Democratic Party do? Put Howard Dean at the head of the Party?? I don't understand. The definition of insanity is expecting different results from doing the same thing over and over again.
The Democratic Party, once a proud and productive wing of American politics is now unrecognizable. It opposes everything that has made America strong (freedom, faith, family, and military). JFK and Truman would be Conservative Republicans by today's standards, and would be opponents of Howard Dean and the modern Democratic party.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
-President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
-Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
So, how does Howard Dean factor into all of this? I'll explain. The above quotes were all stated PRIOR to the emergence of Howard Dean. He changed everything. During the spring and summer of '03 Howard Dean emerged as the voice of the anti-war, anti-Bush crowd, and his popular reception among leftist liberals completely changed the focus of his party. He was the first prominent Democrat to publicly stick his neck out and take the political risk. He was the first liberal to start playing politics with national security, and he found a huge audience. Almost overnight he became the wildly popular darling of the extreme liberal left and shot like a missile into the driver's seat for the Democratic Presidential nomintation, and the rest of the party followed.
Dean reached the impressionable young people of this country who normally don't give a diddly poo about politics and convinced them that George Bush was the devil. He stirred a political conscience among people who normally could care less. He brought a whole new base to the Democratic electorate.
Howard Dean defined the rules of the game for the Democratic primaries (anti-war, anti-Bush). That was the ticket to the Whitehouse, the essential issue. Any Democrat who took a different stance (Joe Lieberman) was fighting a losting battle, and would not be heard. After all, this was about hating Bush, not supporting America. John Kerry regurgitated Howard Dean's message in a toned-down, more articulate way that appealed to more moderate Democrats who don't smoke dope or burn bras, yet was still able to hold on to the Deanicas. He rode Dean's coattails into the hearts of hippies and supplemented his message with a little class warfare and race-baiting...Hello Democratic nomination!!!
Of course we all know how that turned out for the Dems. America rejected it. Kerry failed, Dean failed, and what does the Democratic Party do? Put Howard Dean at the head of the Party?? I don't understand. The definition of insanity is expecting different results from doing the same thing over and over again.
The Democratic Party, once a proud and productive wing of American politics is now unrecognizable. It opposes everything that has made America strong (freedom, faith, family, and military). JFK and Truman would be Conservative Republicans by today's standards, and would be opponents of Howard Dean and the modern Democratic party.
;D